Archive for December, 2009

Pub chef Robert Cusworth pleaded guilty in court on Monday to murdering devout Christian teaching assistant Sally Garwood, praised by her family for her love for God and other people.

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Christian Today:-

A pub chef pleaded guilty in court on Monday to murdering a devout Christian teaching assistant praised by her family for her love for God and other people.

Robert Cusworth repeatedly stabbed 34-year-old Sally Garwood in playing fields near her home on the outskirts of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, in July because he was “in a bad mood”.

The 25-year-old killed Mrs Garwood with a £2 knife he had bought from a Tesco supermarket the day before with the sole intention of hurting someone. He originally wanted to target a jogger but the area was too busy and instead attacked Mrs Garwood while she was out walking her dog. He then went home and called the police to tell them what he had done.

Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Carl Barker said: “The reason Robert Cusworth murdered Sally Garwood is impossible to comprehend.

“As he told the police, he was in a bad mood and he purchased a knife with the sole intention of hurting someone.

“Sally Garwood was an innocent young woman who was simply walking her dog and had done nothing to provoke or invite the attack.

“This was a chilling and utterly senseless murder which has taken the life of a young woman and devastated the lives of her family.”

In a statement released after her death, Mrs Garwood’s family praised her love for God and other people.

“She had so much love in her heart for her family and friends and always saw the good in other people.

“She had a huge heart for young people and helping other individuals who would benefit from her sensitive wise soul.

“Sally was a Christian and had such a deep love for God. Everything about Sally was caring and special and she was completely devoted to her family and friends.

“She was a fun-loving, caring, wonderful and supportive wife, daughter, sister, aunt and friend.

“Her loss is felt very deeply and has left us speechless. We can only describe our current state as total devastation.”

Mrs Garwood worked with children at the Autism Resource Base at Lord Williams’s School in Thame, Oxfordshire. She had been planning to start a family with her husband, Simon.

“One of the hardest things to come to terms with is learning to live without seeing Sally smile – she was such a kind amazingly happy person who even smiled in her sleep,” said Mr Garwood, also a devout Christian.

“I cannot believe I am spending the rest of my life without her.”

Sentencing was adjourned at Reading Crown Court until January.

US: more than eight-in-ten (83%) say that displays of Christmas symbols such as nativity scenes and Christmas trees should be allowed on government property, while 11% say that such displays should not be allowed.

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

I wonder how similar or different the results would be for the UK?

Pew Research

83% – Support Christmas Displays in Public

Americans overwhelmingly support allowing public Christmas displays at least if they are part of a display that includes symbols of other faiths and holiday traditions — more than eight-in-ten (83%) say that displays of Christmas symbols such as nativity scenes and Christmas trees should be allowed on government property, while 11% say that such displays should not be allowed. There is much less support, however, if Christmas symbols are displayed alone on public property: Fewer than half (44%) of Americans say such Christmas-only displays should be allowed, while 27% say that Christmas symbols should only be allowed if Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and other symbols are also displayed, and 12% say it does not matter or express no opinion. White evangelical Protestants are nearly unanimous in their support of public Christmas displays, with 95% saying Christmas symbols should be allowed on government property. Furthermore, a large majority (59%) of evangelicals would allow such displays even if Christmas symbols are unaccompanied by symbols of other traditions. White mainline Protestants (83%) and Catholics (91%) also overwhelmingly support allowing Christmas displays, though fewer among these groups (49% of mainline Protestants and 44% of Catholics) support displaying Christmas symbols in isolation. More than six-in-ten seculars (63%) are comfortable with public Christmas displays, although only one-in-four (27%) says they are acceptable if displayed alone.

Wales could get its first court based on Islamic law under proposals from a Muslim body, BBC Wales has learned. A Sharia law tribunal in Cardiff will help community relations and give some Muslims services they want, supporters have told the Dragon’s Eye programme.

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Only a matter of time. Hat-tip Anglican Mainstream

BBC

Wales could get its first court based on Islamic law under proposals from a Muslim body, BBC Wales has learned.

A Sharia law tribunal in Cardiff will help community relations and give some Muslims services they want, supporters have told the Dragon’s Eye programme.

But the Ministry of Justice said that Sharia law “has no jurisdiction in England and Wales”.

A spokesperson said: “Regardless of religious belief we are all equal before the law”.

Some commentators, such as the think-tank Civitas, say a Muslim arbitration tribunal undermines the concept of one law for UK citizens.

A women’s group said it was not needed and women may not be treated fairly.

A tribunal has been proposed for the middle of next year, and its backers say it will bring the law and Muslim faith together.

There are already seven such tribunals in England when two parties facing marital, financial and other disputes come before experts in Islamic and UK law.

Both parties must agree to allow the tribunal to sit in judgement.

Shaykh Siddiqi, of the tribunal, said: “What we are trying to do is help the third or fourth generation British Muslims who are growing up to give them the services necessary to make Britain their homeland, rather than saying we actually want to ghettoise ourselves.”

The Ministry of Justice said: “Communities have the option to use religious councils and to agree to abide by their decisions. These decisions are subject to national law and cannot be enforced through the national courts, save in limited circumstances.”

“There may be incompatibilities between English and religious laws and the parties should always have the option to refer to the English or Welsh family courts should they wish to do.

“Any member of any community should know that they have the right to refer to an English or Welsh court at any point, particularly in the event that they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue in a way with which they feel uncomfortable.

‘Shoved to one side’

“We are proud of our diverse society and are committed to ensuring cohesive communities. Nothing in the law of England and Wales prevents people abiding by Sharia principles if they wish, provided their actions do not conflict with English and Welsh law.”

The ministry said these tribunals were not courts, but instead “a form of “alternative dispute resolution,” and communities had “the option to use religious councils and to agree to abide by their decisions”.

A recent report by Civitas was critical of Sharia courts, saying they were not in keeping with UK legal principles.

Denis MacEoin, of Civitas, said: “It is Sharia law that is given the prominent position and this effectively means that British law is shoved to one side.

“All citizens have the right to be judged under a single legal system, and that we didn’t bring in the legal system by the back door and that is effectively what is happening at the moment.”

Some fear that Muslim women may become isolated from their communities if they do not choose the tribunal system.

Marya Shabir, of the Welsh Women’s National Coalition, said: “It’s being advertised as this opt-in system when it actually isn’t.

“If a Muslim woman is given the option of using a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal over going through the courts system using the law of England and Wales; there’s no question as to which system she’s going to use.

“If she doesn’t go with the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, she is going to face stigmatisation, she will be ostracised by her community, her peers, her family who believe she is turning her back on the community.”

Dragon’s Eye is broadcast at 2235 GMT on Thursday on BBC One Wales.

A few previous posts on this issue:-

At least 85 sharia ‘courts’ operating in Britain, says Civitas report

Muslim women oppose Sharia councils in Britain

Islamic Sharia law in the UK, which has recently been given the backing by the government, is now operating in 5 Sharia courts in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Nuneaton.

Islamic Sharia Law courts operating in West Midlands

English legal system threatened

UK: Muslim group demands full Sharia law

Christmas: When God Visited This Planet

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Bill Muehlenberg

When noted philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell was asked how he would respond if he found himself standing before God asking him, ‘Why didn’t you believe in me?’, Russell replied, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God!’”

In 1927 he delivered a speech entitled “Why I am Not a Christian”. There he also sought to show that the evidence was lacking, and that Christianity is to be rejected. While Russell was a brilliant mathematician and philosopher, his understanding of Christianity was very poor indeed.

Atheist Richard Dawkins’ understanding of religion in general and Christianity in particular is equally shallow and misinformed. He too argues that the evidence is just not in for faith in God. The Christian of course will argue that there is plenty of evidence for those who are seriously seeking.

Indeed, the bible itself makes such claims, and dismisses atheists as fools. Twice this line is found in the Old Testament: “The fool has said in his heart there is no God” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The biblical writers assume that the evidence is there for those who have not already closed their minds to it.

Paul in Romans 1 and 2 argues that we are all without excuse as to God’s existence. The created universe without and the moral universe within are both clear indicators of the God who is. This general knowledge about God is enough to condemn us, but not enough to save us.

That is why the Bible was given to us and Jesus lived among us, to provide that special knowledge of who God is and what he expects of us. Between the general revelation of God and this special revelation of God, we have all we need to know about God.

Indeed, that is the unique message of Christianity. God has come among us, living a human life, showing us what God is all about. We are living on a visited planet. God has visited us, and so we are now without excuse. That is why Jesus could make such grandiose claims about himself.

Consider just a few passages from the Gospel of John. They make it clear that Jesus regarded himself as the supreme revelation of the Father, and to know Jesus is to know God:

John 5:22-24 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:29 – Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

John 8:19 – Then they asked him, “Where is your father?” “You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

John 12:26 – Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

John 12:44-45 – Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me.

John 12:49-50 – For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.

John 14:1 – Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

John 14:9 – Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

John 15:23 – He who hates me hates my Father as well.

Christmas is the story of God visiting this planet, revealing himself, and providing us with all we need to know him, follow him, and have relationship with him. Thus while many people anxiously await a clue or sign of life from another planet, they can stop their search.

Life from outside this earth does exist, and it has already arrived and communicated to us. Those searching for alien life forms from elsewhere need look no longer. Our visited planet has forever changed as a result of this heavenly visitor.

The God of the entire universe has manifested himself in human form, showing us what his character and attributes are like. We have not been left in the dark, but now have all the evidence we need. Thus we are without excuse when we claim there is no evidence. The evidence is there, but we have simply rejected it.

And people were no more gullible or superstitious back then as they are today. Many doubted that Jesus was God incarnate, despite his many miracles and supernatural acts. Even his own disciples were often sceptical, although they had been with him for three years and seen all his signs and wonders.

Thomas was the classic agnostic, who still would not believe Jesus, even during his resurrection appearances. He had to demand physical proof. And that he got, when Jesus offered him his nail-pierced hands and wounded side. Doubting Thomas could then only respond, “My Lord and my God”.

Jesus extends the same nail-scarred hands to us today. We have the same evidence that those in first-century Palestine had. Some of them back then believed, and some did not. It is the same today. Some will follow the evidence where it leads, while others will close their minds to even the possibility of God’s existence.

God of course is a gentleman who will never impose himself upon us. He has given us all free will to either believe in him or reject him. That decision is entirely of our own making. No one else can make it for us, and no one can be coerced into believing.

Contrary to the claims of Russell, there is evidence aplenty. The question is, are we diligent seekers or casual inquirers? God always promises to reward the former, while he ignores the latter. As Yawheh said through Moses, “If you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 4:29).

Or as Jesus promised, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matt. 7:7-8).

Merry Christmas.

Top U.S. atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation, started because of abortion rights and has progressed to complaining and removing Nativity scenes at fire stations.

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

I had to put this one on the blog, as just another demonstration of how militant, religious, vindictive, mean spirited and pathetic some strains of atheism have become.

Check out this research from Pew Research, which highlights just how out of step with public opinion, militant atheists really are:-

US: more than eight-in-ten (83%) say that displays of Christmas symbols such as nativity scenes and Christmas trees should be allowed on government property, while 11% say that such displays should not be allowed.

MADISON, Wisc., Dec. 21 /Christian Newswire/ — According to the December 2009 edition of the Isthmus, the Freedom From Religion Foundation began in Madison in 1976 after the founders saw Christians opposing abortion at legislative meetings at the Wisconsin State Capitol.

The founders, Annie Laurie Gaylor and mother Anne Gaylor, believed women were being treated unequally by being denied abortion rights. They then set out to destroy Christian freedoms.

They have become one of the top atheist groups in the world with 14,000 members. School age children are one of the primary targets, trying to stop the mention of God in schools.

They take legal action against city councils for saying a prayer before their meetings. They distribute posters and billboards throughout the United States that mock Christians and offer anti-God rhetoric.

They recently lost a lawsuit trying to stop “In God We Trust” at the U.S. Capitol visitor center in Washington, D.C.

Currently, they are working on lawsuits against the National Day of Prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and they are trying to stop tax deductions for clergy housing.

Gaylor’s husband, Dan Barker, who claims to have been a believer before becoming an atheist, says in the Isthmus article, “What’s wrong with stirring things up? Isn’t that the point of free dialogue and free speech? We want to be a part of the quilt that makes America America.”

This atheist group tries to look as if they are tolerant of others’ beliefs, but they use doublespeak. They say they are tolerant, but they try to take away the free speech rights of Christians.

Ironically, atheists are able to freely speak because the U.S. founding fathers created documents that were based on a person’s freedom under God.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and Underground Apologetics are both located in Madison, Wisconsin. Both organizations use the same post office near the Wisconsin State Capitol.

However, the organizations are promoting opposite causes. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is anti-God and Underground Apologetics is trying to help others discover God’s promises.

Underground Apologetics, which operates UndergroundNews.us, is growing every day. Steve McConkey, Underground President, says, “We need to pray and not react in anger. God is still in control. History teaches us that wherever religious freedoms are taken away, dictators reign as in Cuba, China, Hitler’s Germany, and the ex-Soviet Union. There is still hope, even for atheists.”

Conclusion: Keep saying Merry Christmas!

CHARLES SPURGEON THE FIRST AND GREAT COMMANDMENT

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the
first commandment.” — Mark 12:30.

OUR Savior said, “This is the first and great commandment.” It is “the
first“ commandment — the first for antiquity, for this is older than even
the ten commandments of the written law. Before God said, “Thou shalt
not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal,” this law was one of the
commands of his universe; for this was binding upon the angels when man
was not created. It was not necessary for God to say to the angels, “thou
shalt do no murder, thou shalt not steal;” for such things to them were very
probably impossible; but he did doubtless say to them, “Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart;” and when first Gabriel sprang out of his
native nothingness at the fiat of God, this command was binding on him.
This is “the first commandment,” then, for antiquity. It was binding upon
Adam in the garden; even before the creation of Eve, his wife, God had
commanded this; before there was a necessity for any other command this
was written upon the very tablets of his heart — “Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God.”

It is “the first commandment,” again, not only for antiquity, but for dignity.
This command, which deals with God the Almighty must ever take
precedence of every other. Other commandments deal with man and man,
but this with man and his Creator. Other commands of a ceremonial kind
when disobeyed, may involve but slight consequences upon the person who
may happen to offend; but this disobeyed provokes the wrath of God, and
brings his ire at once upon the sinner’s head. He that stealeth committeth a
gross offense, inasmuch as he hath also violated this command; but if it
were possible for us to separate the two, and to suppose an offense of one
command without an offense of this, then we must put the violation of this
commandment in the first rank of offenses. This is the king of
commandments; this is the emperor of the law; it must take precedence of
all those princely commands that God afterwards gave to men.

Again, it is “the first commandment,” for its justice. If men cannot see the
justice of that law which says, “Love thy neighbor,” if there be some
difficulty to understand how I can be bound to love the man that hurts and
injures me, there can be no difficulty here. “Thou shalt love thy God”
comes to us with so much divine authority, and is so ratified by the dictates
of nature and our own conscience, that, verily, this command must take the
first place for the justice of its demand. It is “the first” of commandments.
Whichever law thou dost break, take care to keep this. If thou breakest the
commandments of the ceremonial law, if thou dost violate the ritual of thy
church, thine offense might be propitiated by the priest, but who can
escape when this is his offense? This mandate standeth fast. Man’s law
thou mayest break, and bear the penalty; but if thou breakest this the
penalty is too heavy for thy soul to endure, it will sink thee, man, it will
sink thee like a mill-stone lower than the lowest hell. Take heed of this
command above every other, to tremble at it and obey it, for it is “the first
commandment.”

But the Savior said it was a “great commandment,” and so also it is. It is
“great,” for it containeth in its bowels every other. When God said,
“Remember to keep holy the Sabbath-day,” when he said, “Thou shalt not
bow down unto the idols nor worship them,” — when he said, “Thou shalt
not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” he did but instance
particulars which are all contained in this general mandate. This is the sum
and substance of the law; and indeed even the second commandment lies
within the folds of the first. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor,” is actually to
be found within the center of this command, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God;” for the loving of God would necessarily produce the loving of our
neighbor.

It is a great command, then, for its comprehensiveness, and it is a great
command for the immense demand which it makes upon US. It demands all
our mind, all our soul, all our heart, and all our strength. Who is he that
can keep it, when there is no power of manhood which is exempt from its
sway? And to him that violateth this law it shall be proven that it is a great
command in the greatness of its condemning power, for it shall be like a
great sword having two edges, wherewith God shall slay him. It shall be
like a great thunder-bolt from God, wherewith He shall cast down and
utterly destroy the man that goeth on in his wilful breaking thereof. Hear
ye, then, O Gentiles, and O house of Israel, hear ye, then, this day, this first
and great commandment: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength.”

I shall divide my discourse thus — first, What saith this commandment
unto us? secondly, What say we unto it?

I. And in discussing the first point, WHAT SAITH THIS COMMANDMENT
UNTO us? we shall divide it thus. Here is, first, the duty — ”Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God,” here is, secondly, the measure of She duty —
“Thou shalt love him with all thy heart, mind, soul, strength;” here is,
thirdly, the ground of the claim, enforcing the duty — because he is “thy
God.” God demandeth us to obey, simply upon the ground that he is our
God.

1. To begin, then. This command demands a duty. That duty is, that we
should love God. How many men do break this? One class of men do break
it wilfully and grievously; for they hate God. There is the infidel, who
gnashes his teeth against the Almighty; the atheist, who spits the venom of
his blasphemy against the person of his Maker. You will find those who rail
at the very being of a God, though in their consciences they know there is a
God, yet with their lips will blasphemously deny his existence. These men
say there is no God, because they wish there were none. The wish is father
to the thought; and the thought demands great grossness of heart, and
grievous hardness of spirit before they dare to express it in words; and
even when they express it in words, it needeth much practice ere they can
do it with a bold, unblushing countenance. Now, this command beareth
hard on all them that hate, that despise, that blaspheme, that malign God,
or that deny his being, or impugn his character. O sinner! God says thou
shalt love him with all thy heart; and inasmuch as thou hatest him, thou
standest this day condemned to the sentence of the law.

Another class of men know there is a God, but they neglect him, they go
through the world with indifference, “caring for none of these things.”
“Well,” they say “it does not signify to me whether there is a God or not.”
They have no particular care about him; they do not pay one half so much
respect to his commands as they would to the proclamation of the Queen.
They are very willing to reverence all powers that be, but he who ordained
them is to be passed by and to be forgotten. They would not be bold
enough and honest enough to come straight out, and despise God, and join
the ranks of his open enemies, but they forget God; he is not in all their
thoughts. They rise in the morning without a prayer, they rest at night
without bending the knee, they go through the week’s business, and they
never acknowledge a God. Sometimes they talk about good luck and
chance, strange deities of their own brain, but God, the over-ruling God of
Providence, they never talk of, though sometimes they may mention his
name in flippancy, and so increase their transgressions against him. O ye
despisers and neglecters of God! this command speaks to you — ”Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.”
But I hear one of these gentlemen reply, “Well, sir, I make no pretensions
to religion, but still I believe I am quite as good as those that do; I am quite
as upright, quite as moral and benevolent. True, I do not often darken the
door of a church or chapel, I do not think it necessary, but I am a right
good sort, there are many, many hypocrites in the church, and therefore I
shall not think of being religious.” Now, my dear friend, allow me just to
say one word — what business is that of yours? Religion is a personal
matter between you and your Maker. Your Maker says — “Thou shalt
love me with all thine heart:” it is of no use for you to point your finger
across the street, and point at a minister whose life is inconsistent, or at a
deacon who is unholy, or to a member of the church who does not live up
to his profession. You have just nothing to do with that. When your Maker
speaks to you, he appeals to you personally; and if you should tell him,
“My Lord, I will not love thee, because there are hypocrites,” would not
your own conscience convince you of the absurdity of your reasoning?
Ought not your better judgment to whisper “Inasmuch, then, as so many
are hypocrites, take heed that thou art not; and if there be so many
pretenders who injure the Lord’s cause by their lying pretensions, so much
the more reason why thou shouldst have the real thing, and help to make
the church sound and honest.” But no; the merchants of our cities, the
tradesmen of our streets, our artizans and our workmen, the great mass of
them, live in total forgetfulness of God. I do not believe that the heart of
England is infidel. I do not believe that there is any vast extent of deism or
atheism throughout England: the great fault of our time is the fault of
indifference; people do not care whether the thing is right or not. What is it
to them? They never take the trouble to search between the different
professors of religion to see where the truth lies; they do not think to pay
their reverence to God with all their hearts. Oh, no, they forget what God
demands, and so rob him of his due. To you, to you, great masses of the
population, this law doth speak with iron tongue — “Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind.”

There are a class of men who are a great deal nobler than the herd of
simpletons who allow the sublimities of the Godhead to be concealed by
their Barking care for mere sensual good. There are some who do not
forget that there is a God, no they are astronomers, and they turn their eyes
to heaven, and they view the stars and they marvel at the majesty of the
Creator. Or they dig into the bowels of the earth, and they are astonished
at the magnificence of God’s works of yore. Or they examine the animal,
and marvel at the wisdom of God in the construction of its anatomy. They,
whenever they think of God, think of him with the deepest awe, with the
profoundest reverence. You never hear them curse or swear: you will find
that their souls are possessed of a deep awe of the great Creator. But ah!
my friends, this is not enough: this is not obedience to the command. God
does not say thou shalt wonder at him, thou shalt have awe of him. He asks
more than that; he says “Thou shalt love me!” Oh! thou that seest the orbs
of heaven floating in the far expanse, it is something to lift thine eye to
heaven, and say —

“These are thy glorious works, Parent of good,
Almighty, thine this universal frame.
Thus wond’rous fair; thyself how wond’rous then!
Unspeakable, who sit’st above these Heavens
To us invisible, or dimly seen
In these thy lowest works; yet these declare
Thy goodness beyond thought, and pow’r divine.”

‘Tis something thus to adore the great Creator, but ‘tis not all he asks. Oh,
if thou couldst add to this — “He that made these orbs, that leadeth them
out by their hosts, is my Father, and my heart beats with affection towards
him.” Then wouldst thou be obedient, but not till then. God asks not thine
admiration, but thine affection. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thine heart.”

There are others, too, who delight to spend time in contemplation. They
believe in Jesus in the Father, in the Spirit, they believe that there is but one
God, and that these three are one. It is their delight to turn over the pages
of revelation, as well as the pages of history. The contemplate God; he is to
them a matter of curious study; they like to meditate upon him; the
doctrines of his Word they could hear all day long. And they are very
sound in the faith, extremely orthodox and very knowing, they can fight
about doctrines, they can dispute about the things of God with all their
hearts; but alas! their religion is like a dead fish, cold and stiff, and when
you take it into your hand you say there is no life in it; their souls were
never stirred with it; their hearts were never through into it. They can
contemplate, but they cannot love; they can meditate, but they cannot
commune; they can think of God, but they can never throw up their souls
to him, and clasp him in the arms of their affections. Ah, to you, coldblooded
thinkers — to you, this text speaks. Oh! thou that canst
contemplete, but cannot love, — ”Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart.”

Another man starts up, and he says, “Well this command does not bear on
me; I attend my place of worship twice every Sunday, I have family prayer.
I am very careful not to get up of a morning without saying a form of
prayer; I sometimes read my Bible; I subscribe to many charities.” Ah! My
friend, and you may do all that, without loving God. Why, some of you go
to your churches and chapels as if you were going to be horsewhipped. It is
a dull and dreary thing to you. You dare not break the sabbath, but you
would if you could. You know very well that if it were not for a mere
matter of fashion and custom you would sooner by half be anywhere else
than in God’s house. And as for prayer, why it is no delight to you; you do
it because you think you ought to do it. Some indefinable sense of duty
rests upon you; but you have no delight in it. You talk of God with great
propriety, but you never talk of him with love. Your heart never bounds at
the mention of his name; you eyes never glisten at the thought of his
attributes; our soul never leapeth when you meditate on his works, for your
heart is all untouched and while you are honoring God with your lips, your
heart is far from him, and you are still disobedient to this commandment,
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.”

And now , my hearers, do you understand this commandment? Do I not
see many of you seeking to look for loop-holes through which to escape?
Do I not think I see some of you striving to make a break in this divine
wall which girds us all. You say, “I never do anything against God.” Nay,
my friend, that is not it: it is not what thou dost not do — it is this, “Dost
thou love him?” “Well, sir, but I never violate any of the proprieties of
religion.” No, that is not it; the command is, “Thou shalt love him.” “Well,
sir, but I do a great deal for God; I teach in a Sunday school and so on.”
Ah! I know,; but dost thou love him? It is the heart he wants, and he will
not be content without it. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” That is the
law, and though no man can keep it since Adam’s fall, yet the law is as
much binding upon every son of Adam this day, as when God first of all
pronounced it. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.”

2. That brings us to the second point — the measure of this law. How
much am I to love God?? Where shall I fix the point? I am to love my
neighbor as I love myself. Am I to love my God more than that? Yes,
certainly. The measure is even greater. We are not bound to love ourselves
with all our mind, and soul, and strength, and therefore we are not bound
to love our neighbor so. The measure is a greater one. We are bound to
love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

And we deduce from that, first that we are to love God supremely. Thou
art to love thy wife, O husband. Thou canst not love her too much except
in one case, if thou sholdst love her before God, and prefer her pleasure to
the pleasure of the Most High. Then wouldst thou be an idolater. Child!
thou art to love thy parents; thou canst not love him too much who begat
thee, nor her too much who brought thee forth; but rmember, there is one
law that doth over-ride that. Thou art to love thy God more than thy father
or thy mother. He demands thy first and thy highest affection: thou art to
love him with all thy heart.” We are allowed to love our relatives: we are
taught to do so. He that doth not love his own family is worse than a
heathen man and a publican. But we are not to love the dearest object of
our hearts so much as we love God. Ye may erect little thrones for those
whom ye rightly love; but God’s throne must be a glorious high throne;
you may set them upon the steps, but God must sit on the very seat itself.
He is to be enthroned, the royal One within your heart, the king of your
affections. Say, say hearer, hast thou kept this commandment? I know I
have not; I must plead guilty before God; I must cast myself before him,
and acknowledge my transgression. But nevertheless, there standeth the
commandment — “Thou shalt love God with all thy heart “ — that is, thou
shalt love him supremely.

Note, again, that from the text we may deduce that a man is bound to love
God heartily: that is plain enough, for it says, “Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart.” Yes, there is to be in our love to God a
heartiness. We are to throw our whole selves into the love that we give to
him. Not the kind of love that some people give to their fellows, when they
say, “Be ye warmed and filled,” and nothing more. No: our heart is to have
its whole being absorbed into God, so that God is the hearty object of its
pursuit and its most mighty love. See how the word “all” is repeated again
and again. The whole going forth of the being, the whole stirring up of the
soul, is to be for God, and for God only. “With all thy heart.”

Again: as we are to love God heartily, we are to love him with all our
souls. Then we are to love him with all our life; for that is the meaning of
it. If we are called to die for God, we are to prefer God before our own
life. We shall never reach the fullness of this commandment, till we get as
far as the martyrs, who rather than disobey God would be cast into the
furnace, or devoured by wild beasts. We must be ready to give up house,
home, liberty, friends, comfort, joy, and life, at the command of God, or
else we have not carried out this commandment, “Thou shalt love him with
all thy heart and with all thy life.”

And, next we are to love God with all our mind. That is, the intellect is to
love God. Now, many men believe in the existence of a God, but they do
not love that belief. They know there is a God, but they greatly wish there
were none. Some of you to day would be very pleased, ye would set the
bells a-ringing, if ye believed there were no God. Why, if there were no
God, then you might live just as you liked; if there were no God, then you
might run riot and have no fear of future consequences. It would be to you
the greatest joy that could be, if you heard that the eternal God had ceased
to be. But the Christian never wishes any such a thing as that. The thought
that there is a God is the sunshine of his existence. His intellect bows
before the Most High; not like a slave who bends his body because he
must, but like the angel who prostrates himself because he loves to adore
his Maker. His intellect is as fond of God as his imagination. “Oh!” he
saith, “My God, I bless thee that thou art, for thou art my highest treasure,
my richest and my rarest delight. I love thee with all my intellect; I have
neither thought, nor judgment, nor conviction, nor reason, which I do not
lay at thy feet, and consecrate to thine honor.

And once again, this love to God is to be characterised by activity; for we
are to love Him with all our heart, heartily — with all our soul, that is, to
the laying down of our life — with all our mind, that is mentally; and we
are to love him with all our strength, that is, actively. I am to throw my
whole soul into the worship and adoration of God. I am not to keep back a
single hour, or a single farthing of my wealth, or a single talent that I have,
or a single atom of strength, bodily or mental from the worship of God. I
am to love him with all my strength.

Now what man ever kept this commandment? Surely, none; and no man
ever can keep it. Hence, then, the necessity of a Savior. Oh! that we might
by this commandment be smitten to the earth, that our self-righteousness
may be broken in pieces by this great hammer of “the first and great
commandment!” But oh! my brethren, how may we wish that we could
keep it! for, could we keep this command intact, unbroken, it would be a
heaven below. The happiest of creatures are those that are the most holy,
and that unreservedly love God.

3. And now, very briefly, I have just to state God’s claim upon which he
bases this commandment. “Thou shalt love him with all thy heart, soul,
mind, strength.” Why? First, because he is the Lord — that is, Jehovah;
and secondly because he is thy God.

Man, the Creature of a day, thou oughtest to love Jehovah for what he is.
Behold, him whom thou canst not behold! Lift up thine eyes to the seventh
heaven; see where in dreadful majesty, the brightness of his skirts makes
the angels veil their faces, lest the light, too strong for even them, should
smite them with eternal blindness. See ye him, who stretched the heavens
like a tent to dwell in, and then did weave into their tapestry, with golden
needle, stars that glitter in the darkness. Mark ye him who spread the earth,
and created man upon it. And hear ye what he is. He is all-sufficient,
eternal, self-existent, unchangeable, omnipotent, omniscient! Wilt thou not
reverence him? He is good, he is loving, he is kind, he is gracious. See the
bounties of his providence; behold the plenitude of his grace! Wilt thou not
love Jehovah, because he is Jehovah?

But thou art most of all bound to love him because he is thy God. He is thy
God by creation. He made thee; thou didst not make thyself. God, the
Almighty, though he might use instruments, was nevertheless the sole
creator of man. Though he is pleased to bring us into the world by the
agency of our progenitors, yet is he as much our Creator as he was the
Creator of Adam, when he formed him of clay and made him man. Look at
this marvellous body of thine, see how God hath put the bones together, so
as to be of the greatest service and use to thee, See how he hath arranged
thy nerves and blood vessels; mark the marvellous machinery which he has
employed to keep thee in life! O thing of an hour! wilt thou not love him
that made thee? Is it possible that thou canst think of him who formed thee
in his hand, and moulded thee by his will, and yet wilt thou not love him
who hath fashioned thee?

Again, consider, he is thy God, for he preserves thee. Thy table is spread,
but he spread it for thee. The air that thou dost breathe is a gift of his
charity; the clothes that thou hast on thy back are gifts of his love; thy life
depends on him. One wish of his infinite will would have brought thee to
the grave, and given thy body to the worms; and at this moment, though
thou art strong and hearty, thy life is absolutely dependent upon him. Thou
mayest die where thou art, instanter: thou art out of hell only as the result
of his goodness. Thou wouldst be at this hour sweltering in flames
unquenchable, had not his sovereign love preserved thee. Traitor though
thou mayest be to him, an enemy to his cross and cause, yet he is thy God,
so far as this, for he made thee and he keeps thee afire. Surely, thou mayest
wonder that he should keep thee alive, when thou refusest to love him.
Man! thou wouldst not keep a horse that did not work for thee. Would you
keep a servant in your house who insulted you? Would you spread bread
upon his table, and find livery for his back, if instead of doing your will and
good pleasure he would be his own master, and would run counter to you?
Certainly you would not. And yet here is God feeding you, and you are
rebelling against him. Swearer! the lip with which you cursed your Maker
is sustained by him; the very lungs that you employ in blasphemy are
inspired by him with the breath of life, else you had ceased to be. Oh!
strange that you should eat God’s bread, and then lift up your heel against
him; Oh! marvellous that ye should sit at the table of his providence and be
clothed in the livery of his bounty, and yet that you should turn round and
spit against high heaven, and lift the puny hand of your rebellion against the
God that made you, and that preserves you in being. Oh, if instead of our
God we had one like unto ourselves to deal with, my brethren, we should
not have patience with our fellow-creatures for an hour. I marvel at God’s
longsuffering towards men. I see the foul-mouthed blasphemer curse his
God. O God! how canst thou endure it? Why dost thou not smite him to
the ground? If a gnat should torment me, should I not in one moment crush
it? And what is man compared with his Maker? Not one half so great as an
emmet compared with man. Oh! my brethren, we may well be astonished
that God hath mercy upon us, after all our violations of this high command.
But I stand here to-day his servant, and from myself and from you I claim
for God, because he is God, because he is our God and our Creator — I
claim the love of all hearts, I claim the obedience of all souls and of all
minds, and the consecration of all our strength.

O people of God, I need not speak to you. Ye know that God is your God
in a special sense; therefore you ought to love him with a special love.
II. This is what the commandment says to us. I shall be very short indeed
upon the second head, which is, WHAT HAVE WE TO SAY TO IT?

What hast thou to say to this command, O man? Have I one here so
profoundly brainless as to reply, “I intend to keep it and I believe I can
perfectly obey it, and I think I can get to heaven by obedience to it?” Man,
thou art either a fool, or else wilfully ignorant; for sure, if thou dost
understand this commandment, thou wilt at once hang down thine hands,
and say, “Obedience to that is quite impossible; thorough and perfect
obedience to that no man can hope to reach to! Some of you think you will
go to heaven by your good works, do you? This is the first stone that you
are to step upon — I am sure it is too high for your reach. You might as
well try to climb to heaven by the mountains of earth, and take the
Himalayas to be your first step; for surely when you had stepped from the
ground to the summit of Chimborazo you might even then despair of ever
stepping to the height of this great commandment; for to obey this must
ever be an impossibility. But remember, you cannot be saved by your
works, if you cannot obey this entirely, perfectly, constantly, for ever.
“Well,” says one, “I dare say if I try and obey it as well as I can, that will
do.” No, sir, it will not. God demands that you perfectly obey this, and if
you do not perfectly obey it he will condemn you. “Oh!” cries one, “who
then can be saved!” Ah! that is the point to which I wish to bring you. Who
then can be saved by this law? Why, no one in the world. Salvation by the
works of the law is proved to be a clean impossibility. None of you,
therefore will say you will try to obey it, and so hope to be saved. I hear
the best Christian in the world groan out his thoughts — “O God,” saith
he, “I am guilty; and shouldst thou cast me into hell I dare not say
otherwise. I have broken this command from my youth up, even since my
conversion; I have violated it every day; I know that if thou shouldst lay
justice to the line, and righteousness to the plummet, I must be swept away
for ever. Lord, I renounce my trust in the law; for by it I know I can never
see thy face and be accepted.” But hark! I hear the Christian say another
thing. “Oh!” saith he to the commandment, “Commandment I cannot keep
thee, but my Savior kept thee, and what my Savior did, he did for all them
that believe; and now, O law, what Jesus did is mine. Hast thou any
question to bring against me? Thou demandest that I should keep this
commandment wholly: lo, my Savior kept it wholly for me, and he is my
substitute; what I cannot do myself my Savior has done for me; thou canst
not reject the work of the substitute, for God accepted it in the day when
he raised him from the dead. O law! shut thy mouth for ever; thou canst
never condemn me; though I break thee a thousand times, I put my simple
trust in Jesus, and in Jesus only; his righteousness is mine, and with it I pay
the debt and satisfy thy hungry mouth.”

“ Oh!” cries one, “I wish I could say that I could thus escape the wrath of
the law! Oh that I knew that Christ did keep the law for me!” Stop, then,
and I will tell you. Do you feel to-day that you are guilty, lost, and ruined?
Do you with tears in your eyes confess that none but Jesus can do you
good? Are you willing to give up all trusts, and cast yourself alone on him
who died upon the cross? Can you look to Calvary, and see the bleeding
sufferer, all crimson with streams of gore? Can you say

“A guilty, weak, and helpless worm,
Into thine arms I fall;
Jesus be thou my righteousness,
My Savior and my all!”

Canst say that? Then he kept the law for you, and the law cannot condemn
whom Christ has absolved. If Law comes to you and says, “I will damn you
because you did not keep the law,” tell him that he dares not touch a hair
of your head, for though you did not keep it, Christ kept it for you, and
Christ’s righteousness is yours; tell him there is the money, and though you
did not coin it Christ did; and tell him, when you have paid him all he asks
for, he dares not touch you; you must be free, for Christ has satisfied the
law.

And after that — and here I conclude — O child of God I know what thou
wilt say; after thou hast seen the law satisfied by Jesus thou wilt fall on thy
knees and say, “Lord, I thank thee that this law cannot condemn me, for I
believe in Jesus. But now, Lord, help me from this time forth for ever to
keep it. Lord, give me a new heart, for this old heart never will love thee!
Lord, give me a new life, for this old life is too vile. Lord, give me a new
understanding: wash my mind with the clean water of the Spirit; come and
dwell in my judgment, my memory, my thought; and then give me the new
strength of thy Spirit, and then will I love thee with all my new heart, with
all my new life, with all my renewed mind, and with all my spiritual
strength, from this time forth, even for evermore.”

May the Lord convince you of sin, by the energy of his divine Spirit, and
bless this simple sermon; for Jesus’ sake! Amen.

Israeli archaeologists have uncovered a home dating to the time of Jesus in the town of Nazareth where he is said to have spent the better part of his life, the antiquities authority said on Monday

Monday, December 21st, 2009

AFP:-

Israel finds remains of Jesus-era home in Nazareth

NAZARETH, Israel — Israeli archaeologists have uncovered a home dating to the time of Jesus in the town of Nazareth where he is said to have spent the better part of his life, the antiquities authority said Monday.

The remains were found near the Basilica of the Annunciation, built on the ruins of three earlier churches on the site where Christians believe Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she would give birth to Jesus.

“The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus,” said Yardenna Alexandre, who is heading the excavation.

“The building that we found is small and modest, and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period.”

Read More

And The Church of Jesus Christ:-

Big News From the IAA At Nazareth? Did they find Mary’s House?

This morning the IAA’s Spokesperson circulated a notice to journalists inviting them to a Press Conference to be held tomorrow morning, December 21, at which “The IAA will Reveal a New Archeological Find in Nazareth”. The meeting point will be behind the Church of the Annunciation, next to the upper entrance to the old school of Saint Joseph at 10:20 AM. The notice does not give a hint of what that “New Archeological find” is, although I suspect that some list recipients are in the know (and some might think that it may have something to do with a fast-approaching date on the calendar).

Here is a link to the Israel Antiquities Authority website, if you want to check it out. I must admit that I couldn’t immediately find anything about this, but they may update their website soon and I did spend only a very short amount of time looking, as I am feeling rather lazy at the moment.

Holy See declares unique copyright on Papal figure – The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the Pope

Monday, December 21st, 2009

Copyright the Pope!

(CNA).- The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the Pope on Saturday morning.  The statement seeks to establish and safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise authorized.

The statement cited a “great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father” in recent years as contributing to a desire to use the Pontiff’s name for all manner of educational and cultural institutions, civic groups and foundations.

Due to this demand, the Vatican has felt it necessary to declare that “it alone has the right to ensure the respect due to the Successors of Peter, and therefore, to protect the figure and personal identity of the Pope from the unauthorized use of his name and/or the papal coat of arms for ends and activities which have little or nothing to do with the Catholic Church.”

The declaration alludes to attempts to use ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to “attribute credibility and authority to initiatives” as another reason to establish their “copyright” on the Holy Father’s name, picture and coat of arms.

“Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff… and/or the use of the title ‘Pontifical,’ must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See,” concluded the message released to the press.

Father Tim Jones, 41, broke off from his traditional annual Nativity sermon yesterday to tell his flock that stealing or shoplifting from large shop chains is sometimes the best option for vulnerable people.

Monday, December 21st, 2009

This will not be well received….

Daily Mail

Priest outrages police by telling congregation: ‘My advice to poor is to shoplift’

Father Tim Jones, 41, broke off from his traditional annual sermon yesterday to tell his flock that stealing from large chains is sometimes the best option for vulnerable people.

It is far better for people desperate during the recession to shoplift than turn to ‘prostitution, mugging or burglary’, he said.

The married father-of-two insisted his unusual advice did not break the Bible commandment ‘Thou shalt not steal’ – because God’s love for the poor outweighs his love for the rich.

But the minister’s controversial sermon at St Lawrence Church in York has been slammed by police and a local MP, who say that no matter what the circumstances, shoplifting is an offence.

Delivering his festive lesson, Father Jones told the congregation: ‘My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.  I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or  because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

‘I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

‘I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need.

‘I offer the advice with a heavy heart and wish society would recognise that bureaucratic ineptitude and systematic delay has created an invitation and incentive to crime for people struggling to cope.’

He added that he felt society had failed the needy, and said it was far better they shoplift than turn to more degrading or violent options such as prostitution, mugging or burglary.

Read More

Christian Israel-bashers: a seasonal round-up

Monday, December 21st, 2009

Cross-post by Cyrus over at the ChristianAidWatch Blog

At Harry’s Place Adam Holland relays a seasonal Israel-demonizing epistle from Trots for Jesus, alias the United Churches of Christ and one or two more of the usual suspects from the left end of the American Protestant spectrum. Predictably enough, it equates Israel with imperial Rome and the Palestinians with Rome’s Jewish subjects and specifically with Jesus. The rhetoric comes straight from Canon Naim Ateek and Sabeel. And as Adam points out:-

‘To put this comparison in perspective, remember that the Roman forces in Judea are said to have massacred tens (if not hundreds) of thousands including woman and children, literally festooning roads with their crucified victims. The Roman war against the Jews included the Romans burning Jerusalem, including the temple, to the ground.

‘And of course, there was that whole Christ-killing thing… The letter goes on to subtly invoke that old standby, Jewish deicide:

“What the Palestinian community faces, Jesus knew when he walked these stony hills.”‘

One of the signatories links to a page on the site of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, on which we find a set of four maps purporting to show the changes in the division of land between Jews and Palestinians from 1946 up to the present. In fact they’re a wicked propagandist travesty, and again Adam Holland does a great job of demonstrating this. One point he could have added is the gross dishonesty of portraying the whole of Israel as “Jewish land”. In reality, of course, it’s the home of a million Arabs.

This is not the first time I’ve seen those maps. They can be found, illustrating an equally mendacious narrative of the “suffering in Palestine”, on the website of Friends of Sabeel UK, the charity (I’m inclined to put that in quotes) about whose partnership with Christian Aid I posted recently.

Here they’re credited, below the extremely revealing rollcall of FoSUK Patrons, as “courtesy of Tim Biles from his book A Puppy Dies“. The title tells you all you need to know, doesn’t it? Now it would be a pretty amazing coincidence if this were not one and the same person as the Revd. Canon Timothy Biles, who, I find, acts as Consultant and newsletter editor to a charity called the Jerusalem and the Middle East Church Association. If he is indeed the originator of those maps they are no aberration. He’s still at it.

Here is an extract from a book review by Mr Biles in the Advent 2009 issue:-

‘But storm clouds gathered, the events of 1948 are described in graphic detail, the incursion of Zionist forces into Haifa and northern Palestine, the forced evacuation of the indigenous population to southern Lebanon and the refugee camp of Shatila [...]‘

The detail may be graphic but it is evidently extremely one-sided, at least in Mr Biles’s reading of it. Where are the incursions of the Arab armies seeking to destroy Israel at birth, and fought off only at the cost of 6000 Jewish lives?

And again:-

‘The author shows how the lives and fates of Palestinian Christians and Muslims are intertwined, making it clear that it is the Israeli occupation, not Islam, that threatens Christians in the land that was Palestine.’

Curious, then, that while Palestinian Christians become an endangered species the Muslim population, equally subject to occupation, is growing by leaps and bounds. But it seems that for Mr Biles and his friends nobody other than the Israelis is ever threatening. An article in the 2008 issue quotes another priest and/or his wife as saying:-

‘What is ultimately striking about Gaza is the sheer disproportionality of it all – the collective punishment inflicted on 1.5 million people is against every measure of international and humanitarian law…’

I certainly understand why people returning from Gaza in the aftermath of the invasion would say this. But we get no mention of what it is that the “collective punishment” is disproportionate to, no suggestion that lobbing missiles at civilian populations is itself a form of collective punishment “against every measure of international and humanitarian law”. Still less any suggestion that Hamas, the popularly elected rulers of Gaza, bear any responsibility for thus picking a fight with a vastly more powerful enemy. As so often the H-word doesn’t appear at all.

Bias is one thing, lies are another. Above this article is a heading containing the claim that “Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth”. This was untrue when George Galloway said it three or four years ago (which hasn’t prevented him from repeating it last year) and it’s still untrue, as a minute’s googling will confirm. Gaza’s population density (4118 per sq km – panel on the right here) is exceeded by Macau, Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar (list here). Oh, and also (comfortably) by Tel Aviv (7604 per sq km).

It’s true that Gaza may move further up the league table if it continues to have one of the highest rates of population growth on earth. It’s not immediately obvious to me how this is the Israelis’ fault (indeed they made a temporary dent in the population by removing 8000 settlers in 2005) but I expect Mr Biles could soon put me right.

So is this Canon of the Church of England a liar or a dupe? The latter, I very much hope, but if so, I wish he’d do a bit less politicking and a bit more priesting. If the former, it’s a disgrace that he’s a dignitary of my Church.

Switch to our mobile site